'Architectural anarchists' fight 111 Maplewood Ave. project

Thursday

Aug 7, 2014 at 1:54 PMAug 7, 2014 at 2:05 PM

PORTSMOUTH — “Architectural anarchists” is how local attorney Peter Loughlin described a citizens group that brought the city to court on Thursday seeking to overturn approval of a large mixed-use development for 111 Maplewood Ave.

Elizabeth Dinan

PORTSMOUTH — “Architectural anarchists” is how local attorney Peter Loughlin described a citizens group that brought the city to court on Thursday seeking to overturn approval of a large mixed-use development for 111 Maplewood Ave.

The citizens group, which includes state Sen. Martha Fuller Clark, Clare Kittredge (a member of Portsmouth Now!), Karen Bouffard, George and Erica Dodge, Debra Dumont and the firm of Slattery & Dumont, was represented in the Rockingham County Superior Court for Thursday's hearing by attorney Duncan MacCallum. The group seeks reversal of prior Portsmouth Historic District Commission and Zoning Board of Adjustment approval for the project, or a court-ordered remand back to the HDC to start the process over again.

Resident Joe Caldarola brought a large model of the proposed development and abutting buildings into a third-floor courtroom at the county courthouse, where presiding Judge David Anderson said it was likely it was the largest model ever displayed in the courthouse.

The project calls for a four-story mixed-use building on the lawn next to the former Portsmouth Herald building. Commercial space would be on the first floor and 71 residential units would be on the upper floors.

MacCallum opened the legal debate by calling the planned development “a mammoth, grotesque structure which is wildly out of character.”

“There were a number of procedural irregularities, but the bottom line is that the structure is too massive for the surroundings,” MacCallum told the court.

He called it a “modern, cookie-cutter structure” planned to stand among houses built in the 1800s and across from a “historic cemetery.”

“It will be larger than any other building in the entire historic district except the Sheraton and the High-Hanover garage,” MacCallum said.

Anderson, who is a resident of Portsmouth, said he was familiar with the area and asked how the scale of the project compares to the new Portwalk project. MacCallum responded that it was larger than any one of the three Portwalk components. Portwalk, he added, is not located across from historic properties and a cemetery, he added.

“It has to be historically appropriate and that's where this building falls down,” he said.

MacCallum also complained to the court that the public was not granted the opportunity to comment about the project when it was reviewed during multiple HDC work sessions.

“By the time the public was allowed to speak,” he told the judge, “some HDC members had already made up their minds. The citizens were not represented.”

After that, MacCallum said, the city changed its rules and now allows the public to speak during work sessions. He also told alleged that the ZBA “overlooked the requirements of the HDC” when it upheld the HDC's approval.

“If you don't reverse the decision outright,” MacCallum said, “send it back to the HDC to start over.”

Representing the project engineers, Loughlin submitted to the court a disc he said had 400 pages of relevant records. He described the debate as simple and said it doesn't matter whether some citizens like the design or not, or whether it's historically appropriate, but whether the ZBA acted reasonably.

Loughlin said that during a Jan. 28 appeal of the HDC approval to the ZBA, extensive evidence was presented that showed the project meets the purposes, objectives and criteria of the HDC.

“The ZBA members got it,” he said, because they recognized there “are such things as private property rights” and that if the plans meet city criteria, a certificate of appropriateness must be granted.

The judge noted an argument from the citizens group saying a straw vote taken by the HDC during a work session violated the process. Loughlin responded that the straw votes are taken to “get the flavor” of what the board is thinking and if they weren't taken, “it would be a waste of everyone's time.”

He said HDC members are experienced professionals and because of that, applicants get “thousands of dollars” worth of professional advice for the “price of an application.”

Loughlin told the judge he knows and likes the citizens opposed to the 111 Maplewood Ave. project, but called them “architectural anarchists” and said “they feel they should be the ones deciding how buildings should be designed.”

He also informed the court that Thursday's appeal hearing marked the one-year anniversary of the HDC's approval of the project being debated.

He said he recently jogged in Boston where a 10-story building stands next to a historic cemetery and that he “didn't have the sense that the buildings were disrespecting the cemetery.”

Loughlin also argued that the city's change of policy to allow public comment during work sessions was not an admission of any prior wrongdoing, but in response to “the tenacity of the petitioners.”

The appeal should be dismissed, Loughlin told the judge.

Assistant City Attorney Suzanne Woodland told the court that the city stands by the process and that citizens were allowed to comment publicly after the work sessions were completed.

“There was a public hearing,” she said.

Anderson noted that photos were taken of Caldarola's model and said he would take the case under advisement and issue a ruling at a later date.

Advertise

Original content available for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons license, except where noted.
seacoastonline.com ~ 111 New Hampshire Ave., Portsmouth, NH 03801 ~ Privacy Policy ~ Terms Of Service